Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-31-Speech-4-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010531.3.4-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We shall be voting in favour of Mrs Myller’s report, amongst other things because it highlights the basic problem posed by the Council’s proposals on the sixth Community Environment Action Programme. The intentions, ambitions and priorities of those proposals are often praiseworthy, but the clarification of the objectives (what exactly is sustainable development?) and the definition of the policies, the resources and the time scales, are still extremely vague.
When it is a question of imposing liberal economic reforms and defending the individual interests of private financial powers, the Council issues restrictive regulations. When it comes to facing up to the ecological crisis and thereby defending the collective interests of the population, all it does is issue very general professions of faith. The contrast is striking, and it is not difficult to understand.
The ecological crisis, which is now of human origin, is fuelled by the predatory behaviour of this liberal capitalism which the Council is in favour of. The implementation of a policy of sustainable development requires a radical change of direction in the area of economics, a change of direction which the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties seek to prohibit in the name of commercial competition, employers’ rights and freedom for private investment. There are two alternatives: defending large shareholders on the one hand, and ecological requirements (as well as other, more numerous, social needs) on the other. We have to choose between them."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples